Sample 3 Final Corrections

110J Editing Group

Sample 3

FINAL CORRECTIONS
4/4/01

PARAGRAPH ONE

1. Looking at essay one# "A Scientist: I Am The enemy"# by Ron Kline and the second essay# "In Defense Of The Animals"# by Meg Greenfield# I can clearly say that the later# one is the better one of the two essays.

REVISION: Looking at essay one, "A Scientist: I Am The enemy," by Ron Kline, and the essay two, "In Defense Of The Animals" by Meg Greenfield, I believe that the latter is the better of the two essays.

2. To show that Greenfield has the better essay# I will focus on the thesis, the organization and the development of the two essays.

REVISION: To show that Greenfield has written the better argument, I will focus on the organization and the development of the two essays.

3. Essay two talks about her# own point of view in her essay,# she doesn't generalize her argument for everyone.

REVISION OF 3: First, Meg Greenfield only tries to defend her own point of view regarding animal testing. She doesn't generalize her arguments and claim to speak for everyone.

4. Her thesis is consistently supported throughout her essay.

REVISION: Second, she supports her thesis consistently throughout the essay.

5. She also compromises# both sides of the argument.

REVISION: And third, she also considers both sides of the controversy over animal testing.

6. In Ron Kline's essay one# on the other hand# he generalizes his view for everyone else's#.

REVISION: On the other hand, unlike Greenfield, Ron Kline generalizes his thesis and claims to speak for everyone.

7. His thesis is not supported consistently throughout the essay either*.

REVISION: He does not support his thesis consistently throughout his essay.

8. Nor# does he also compromise with the other side. /THIS IS A FRAGMENT/

REVISION. And lastly, he does not consider both sides of the animal testing issue.

/EVEN THOUGH I AM ONLY LOOKING AT SENTENCE LEVEL PROBLEMS, I CAN'T CORRECT SENTENCES WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE LOGIC OF THE PARAGRAPH. GRAMMAR AND LOGIC GO HAND IN HAND./

BOTH SETS OF ARGUMENTS IN THE INTRODUCTION NEED TO BE STATED AS PARALLEL CONSTRUCTIONS. EACH ONE STARTS WITH THE AUTHOR AS SUBJECT. THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE PAPER GOES BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE GREENFIELD OR KLINE AS SUBJECT AND THE "THESIS" AS SUBJECT (IN A PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION).

IDEALLY, EDITING SHOULD NOT BEGIN BY FOCUSING ON GRAMMAR AND STYLE. RATHER, IT SHOULD FOCUS ON CLARIFYING THE LOGIC OF WHAT IS BEING SAID. AND THAT IS THE REASON I MAKE VERY FEW SENTENCE LEVEL COMMENTS.

GRAMMAR AND STYLE BECOME IMPORTANT ONLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE ESSAY HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY DEFINED.

PARAGRAPH TWO

1. Greenfield illustrates in her essay her own point of views.

REVISION: Greenfield illustrates her own point of view in her essay.

2. She makes her point clear by talking in the first person.

REVISION: She makes her point clear by speaking in the first person.

3. She explains how she changed her view about animal testing and how she views the topic now.

COMMENT: THIS IS CONFUSING. EXPLAINING <CHANGE> MEANS EXPLAINING WHAT SHE BELIEVED BEFORE AND WHAT SHE BELIEVES NOW. THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE IDEAS.

REVISION: She explains how she came to change some of her views on animal testing.

4. But she also mentions that other people will have different opinions on the subject matter and doesn't critique people who have a different opinion from hers.

COMMENT: THIS IS ENTIRE SENTENCE IS CONFUSING. THE WRITER ALSO USES THE WORD <CRITIQUE> INCORRECTLY. A BETTER WORD TO USE WOULD BE <CRITICIZE>.

REVISION: SHE ALSO MENTIONS THAT OTHERS MAY HAVE VIEWS THAT DIFFER FROM HERS, BUT SHE IS NOT CRITICAL OF THEM.

5. This is the way Greenfield's essay had a better organization and

development than Kline's essay.

COMMENT: NOT PARALLEL. SEE COMMENT ABOVE.

REVISION: THESE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS I BELIEVE GREENFIELD DOES A BETTER JOB ORGANIZING AND DEVELOPING HER ESSAY THAN KLINE.

6. Kline on the other hand generalizes every argument in his essay.

7. He is convinced that his view point is the only correct one and that all other people should have the same viewpoint.

REVISION: (6 AND 7 NEED TO BE COMBINED.) Kline, on the other hand, is convinced every argument in this essay is the only correct one and that other people <HIS READERS> should SHARE the same views.

8. Kline oversimplifies a lot of things in his essay.

COMMENT: <KLINE> NEEDS TO BE PRONOMINALIZED. IT IS BEING REPEATED TOO MANY TIMES IN SUCCESSION.

REVISION: BUT IN MAKING HIS CASE, HE RADICALLY OVER-SIMPLIFIES OR ENTIRELY IGNORES SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES.

9. He makes it seems as if animal testing was not too much of a big deal and that testing is worth it, "Life is often cruel both to animals and human beings" he writes.

/THE LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE THREE SENTENCES (8,9,10) NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED.

REVISION: FOR EXAMPLE, HE ARGUES AGAINST THE CHARGE THAT ANIMAL TESTING INVOLVES THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS BY SIMPLY SAYING, "Life is often cruel both to animals and human beings." SINCE HE DOESN'T MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, KLINE APPARENTLY EXPECTS THE READER TO BELIEVE THAT THAT ONE COMMENT IS A REASONABLE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF ANIMAL CRUELTY.

PARAGRAPH THREE

1. Greenfield supports her thesis through out he essay.

REVISION: Greenfield supports her thesis throughout his <HER> essay.

2. She argues that "the animal-rights people have begun to get to her."

COMMENT: The quotation marks should be deleted. This is not a direct quotation because "her" would then be "me."

REVISION: SHE ARGUES THAT THE ANIMAL-RIGHTS PEOPLE HAVE BEGUN TO GET TO HER.

3. She proves throughout the essay that she partly believes in what the animal-rights people stand for.

COMMENT: <PROVE> IS TOO STRONG OF A VERB. ONE DOESN'T PROVE "A PERSONAL BELIEF." THEY ARE EXPLAINED OR DISCUSSED.

REVISION: IN HER ESSAY, SHE DISCUSSES HOW SHE CAME TO BELIEVE IN SOME OF THE IDEAS THE ANIMAL RIGHTS PEOPLE STAND FOR.

4. She supports her thesis by giving examples of how the animal-rights people changed her point of view on animal testing.

COMMENT: <POINT OF VIEW> SHOULD BE CHANGED TO <HER VIEWS on animal testing>.

5. She presents both sides of the argument for and against animal testing to support her own thesis since she argues that she is stands in the middle.

REVISION: She presents arguments for and against animal testing to

support her thesis, since she argues that she stands in the middle.

6. She says that it is important to find cures for sicknesses, but only to a certain limit /RUN-ON/ she feels animal testing is necessary.

COMMENT: RON-ONS, COMMA SPLICES AND FRAGMENTS ARE MAJOR SENTENCE BOUNDARY PROBLEMS.

REVISION: She says that it is important to find cures for sicknesses, SO she STILL BELIEVES SOME animal testing is necessary.

7. None of her arguments contradict with the thesis.

COMMENT: <WITH> SHOULD BE DELETED. THE SENTENCES ALSO NEEDS THE TRANSITION WORD <BUT> TO CONNECT IT TO #6.

REVISION: <BUT> NONE OF HER ARGUMENTS CONTRADICT HER THESIS.

8. While Kline's thesis, which is stated at the very end of the essay, is not supported clearly through out the essay.

COMMENT: THIS IS A FRAGMENT. IT IS CAUSED BY <WHILE>.

ONCE AGAIN, THE SENTENCES SHOULD BE PARALLEL. THE WRITER STARTED BY TALKING ABOUT GREENFIELD SO HERE HE/SHE SHOULD TALK ABOUT KLINE, NOT KLINE'S <THESIS>.

REVISION: KLINE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS THESIS AS CLEARLY AS GREENFIELD DOES.

9. He jumps around a lot with his argument, and some of his argument he as barely any support.

REVISION: HE PRESENTS ARGUMENTS THAT SKIP FROM SUBJECT TO SUBJECT AND [HE] GIVES VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.

PARAGRAPH FOUR

1. Kline's essay does not compromise # between the two sides of the argument.

REVISION: Kline's essay does not consider both sides of the controversy over animal testing.

2. For him # there is nothing in the middle,* either everything is right or wrong.

COMMENT: THERE IS A COMMA SPLICE HERE. THE WRITER HAS A COMMA JOINING TWO INDEPENDENT CLAUSES. HOWEVER, THIS MAY NOT BE CLEAR BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE/SHE IS TRYING TO USE <EITHER> AS AN ADVERBIAL CONJUNCTION.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WRITER BELIEVES THE UNDERLINED CLAUSE IN #2 IS A DEPENDENT CLAUSE.

HOWEVER, <EITHER> IS OUT OF POSITION. SO WHEN YOU RETURN IT YOU ITS PROPER PLACE BEFORE <RIGHT OR WRONG>, THEN THE COMMA SPLICE CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN.

REVISION: FOR HIM, THERE IS NO MIDDLE POSITION. EVERYTHING IS EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG.

(NOTE: IN THIS CASE, A SEMI-COLON [;] WOULD BE PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE INSTEAD OF THE PERIOD SINCE THE TWO INDEPENDENT CLAUSES ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED IN MEANING.)

3. He also oversimplifies his arguments for animal testing and he uses his medical background to make it seem that he is right.

COMMENT: THIS IS A VERY TOUGH SENTENCE TO REVISE BECAUSE THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE LOGIC OF CONNECTING THE TWO CLAUSES WITH A CO-ORDINATING CONJUNCTION. IT IS HARD TO SEE THE GRAMMATICAL PROBLEM WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE/SHE IS TRYING TO SAY ABOUT KLINE.

THE WRITER WANTS TO COMBINE THESE TWO IDEAS.

1)KLINE OVER-SIMPLIFIES HIS ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING ANIMAL TESTING.

2) KLINE USES HIS MEDICAL BACKGROUND COVER UP THE FACT THAT HE IS DOING THIS.

REVISION: KLINE PRESENTS ARGUMENTS FOR ANIMAL TESTING THAT ARE HIGHLY OVER-SIMPLIFIED, BUT HE EXPECTS HIS READERS TO ACCEPT THEM SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS A MEDICAL DOCTOR.

4. He seems to be talking #for all the people in his #medical field. #

COMMENT: #4 IS "GRAMMATICAL," BUT IT REMAINS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS.

A) IT WOULD SOUND BETTER TO SUBSTITUTE <EVERYONE> FOR <ALL THE PEOPLE>.

B) <HIS MEDICAL FIELD> IMPLIES HE IS SPEAKING FOR PEOPLE IN HIS PARTICULAR MEDICAL SPECIALTY, E.G., NEUROSURGERY OR DERMATOLOGY. WHAT THE WRITER MEANS IS THAT HE IS SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE IN THE FIELD OF MEDICINE. SO THE DETERMINE SHOULD BE CHANGED TO <THE>.

C) <SPEAKING FOR> SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR <TALKING> BECAUSE <TALKING> IMPLIES A REAL FACE-TO-FACE CONVERSATION. <SPEAKING FOR> MEANS THAT HE IS <SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF>, WHICH IS WHAT THE STUDENT WANTS TO SAY.

REVISION 1: HE SEEMS TO BE SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE IN THE MEDICAL FIELD.

COMMENT ON REVISION 1: <SEEMS> IS GRAMMATICAL. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE ESSAYS, THE WRITER IS BEING VERY VAGUE. <SEEMS> IMPLIES DOUBT ON HIS/HER PART. HOWEVER KLINE'S POSITION IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. SO EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS WOULD BE BETTER:

5. Where as #Greenfield only writes things that are TRUE TO HER OWN PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW.

COMMENT:

A) <WHEREAS> MAKES THIS A SENTENCE FRAGMENT. I THINK THE WRITER THOUGHT THAT #5 WAS CONTINUING THE IDEAS IN SENTENCE #4, BUT IT IS STILL A DEPENDENT CLAUSE THAT CAN NOT STAND ALONE.

B) <WRITES> IS TOO VAGUE. NOT ALL OF WHAT GREENFIELD "WRITES" ARE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH OR FALSITY. WHAT SHE MEANS IS <GREENFIELD ONLY USES EVIDENCE THAT ...>

C) <TRUE TO HER OWN PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW> IS THE WRONG PHRASE. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. <TRUE TO> MEANS <LOYAL TO>.

THE WRITER IS CONFUSED HERE. WHAT HE/SHE IS ACTUALLY SAYING IN #5 IS THAT ALL OF GREENFIELD'S STATEMENTS ARE "PERSONAL" OR "SUBJECTIVE." THIS IS NOT TRUE, AND THIS IS NOT WHAT THE WRITER MEANS.

WHAT HE/SHE IS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT GREENFIELD ONLY MAKES STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED WITH THE EVIDENCE SHE, GREENFIELD, GIVES. SO RATHER THAN STATING A PERSONAL OPINION AND THEN IMPLYING THAT EVERYONE BELIEVES IT TO BE TRUE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE (AS KLINE AND YONA BOTH DO), GREENFIELD MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A PARTICULAR STATEMENT IS TRUE GIVEN WHAT SHE KNOWS OR HAS EXPERIENCED. AND THEN SHE LEAVES IT AT THAT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, GREENFIELD DOES NOT OVER-GENERALIZE.

HOWEVER, THIS WAS A DIFFICULT POINT FOR 110J STUDENTS TO SEE WITHOUT HAVING READ THE ORIGINAL ESSAYS. SO I DON'T EXPECT ANYONE IN 110J TO HAVE GOTTEN THIS.

BUT THESE EXAMPLES SHOW THAT REAL WORLD EDITING INVOLVES MUCH MORE THAN CORRECTING THE GRAMMAR OF INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES.

REMEMBER, ALL GOOD WRITING IS BASED UPON THE UNDERLYING LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF WHAT IS BEING SAID. THERE IS NO WAY TO HIDE OR DISGUISE THAT FACT. WHEN YOU ARE REVISING YOUR OWN ESSAYS, YOU CAN EITHER CHECK FOR THE GRAMMAR FIRST OR REVISE THEM AND THEN CHECK FOR THE GRAMMAR.

***********

NOTE: YOU NEED TO USE GRAMMAR SMART AND/OR EM IN MAKING YOUR REVISIONS. LOOK PROBLEM WORDS AND PHRASES UP IN YOUR TEXTS. DO NOT GUESS.